Right-of-Center (Part I)
Hmmm….I seem to have struck a nerve with my first post, at least if the heat from the comments is any indicator. Unfortunately, many of those comments exemplify the sort of anti-empiricism that I'm trying to remedy.
The biggest issue folks had with my last post was with my claim that the country tilts right of center. Since I indicated yesterday that I'd defend that claim today—yes, I realize that I didn't provide much evidence yesterday—and since I'm intending this post to be an example of the kind of evidence-based argumentation that I have in mind, let's get this party started.
Some commenters questioned what I meant by "center", "left", and "right", which is quite reasonable. As a first crack at this question, we can simply ask people whether they are moderate, liberal, or conservative. Doing so typically produces a breakdown such as that I provided yesterday for the 2004 election—21% liberal, 45% moderate, 34% conservative. In 2006, it was 20/47/32. Don't like that? There are also survey questions like one from the Pew Research Center that ask people to put themselves on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being conservative and 6 being liberal. Here was the breakdown in April 2007, from 1 to 6: 14%, 14%, 28%, 20%, 13%, 11% (with 7% saying "don't know" or refusing). Whether you want to compare the "1"s to the "6"s (14-11), the "1"s and "2"s to the "5"s and "6"s (28-24), or the "1"s, "2"s, and "3"s to the "4"s, "5"s, and "6"s (56-44), there are more self-identified conservatives than liberals.
To these facts, the typical response from dissenters (given in many of the comments) is that "liberal" is a stigmatized term that people refuse to identify with, despite their being liberal when it comes right down to it. There are a couple of ways to examine this hypothesis (and it is just a hypothesis, after all). First, the American National Election Study includes the following question: "In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. Where would you place yourself on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means the left and 10 means the right?" Twenty-two percent of adults placed themselves left of center (i.e., 0-4) while 50 percent placed themselves right of center (6-10). Note that "liberal" is not used in this question.
Second, a Gallup poll (sub. req.) in December asked people whether various ideological terms applied to themselves. Fifty-four percent said "conservative" did, and 53 percent said "moderate" did (you can see that respondents could choose multiple terms this time). On the other hand just 34 percent said "liberal" did. Oh, and the survey asked about "progressive" too—28 percent said that that applied to them. So much for the allegedly tainted L-word.
Finally, it's worth looking at some historical data to see whether "liberal" became a less popular choice during the same period when the conservative message machine was kicking into gear. But according to the NES, the ratio of conservatives to liberals was roughly the same in 1972 (pre-Heritage Foundation, pre-conservative radio, pre-infrastructure other than the American Enterprise Institute and maybe the Cato Institute) as today. There wasn't an increase as the message machine cranked up. Perhaps it was Vietnam or the Civil Rights Movement that tainted "liberals"? Perhaps, but then why has the brand remained tarnished 40 years later? Why haven't we been as successful tarnishing the conservative brand?
A second hypothesis to explain away these facts is that while Americans are more likely to call themselves conservative than liberal, their actual policy preferences are left-of-center. This hypothesis has been put forth by Media Matters's Paul Waldman, among others. Waldman says that moderates look more like liberals than conservatives on "issue after issue" and that it's "exceedingly hard" to find issues where they look more like conservatives. He cites Social Security and domestic spending questions in the 2004 NES, as most adherents of this view typically do (including the most-cited political scientist on this question, James Stimson).
So are they right? I'll answer that question in my next post later today.
This isn't mean as a refutation of your post but the American National Election survey questions seems pretty tilted, doesn't it? ""In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. Where would you place yourself on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means the left and 10 means the right?"
Now, most people are asked to rate things on scales of 0-10 all the time. But 0 tends to mean worst and 10 tends to mean best. So, they basically framed the left/right question in the same way as "How was your service at Denny's? 0 means you realize you just ate at a Denny's and 10 means you hallucinated yourself into some sort of culinary nirvana."
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 30, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the great majority of voters are conservative but probably with a meaning vastly different than your own, Scott. One might consider that allegiance to the Bill of Rights, a kind of litmus test for liberalism, is not all that strong in general.
Most people seem to describe themselves as being liberal on social issues and conservative in fiscal affairs while the opposite often seems more true.
The two primary issues that today separate liberals from conservatives in my view are Iraq and national health insurance.
On both those issues the vast majority of the population is decidedly to the left of all the leading candidates as I read the polls. Care to explain?
In general the issue is a false one. It is really no accident that John Edwards' populism resonates most strongly in what is generally regarded the most conservative areas of the country. The coastal liberal elites tend to not appreciate truest sort of liberalism.
Best, Terry
May 30, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is also the issue of the appeal of authoritarianism to consider. That seems to break through some traditional classifications (including male/female).
sPh
May 30, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the problems with 0/10 scales is that you're forced to the middle since you can't say 0 for Denny's slow service but 10 for the best coffe.
Making people make the liberal or conservative choice distorts their opinion.
For example, I recently got a poll from the DLC and I ripped it up and threw it away since I didn't like the choices it gave.
So, what does the empiricist really know anyway?
To boldly go...
May 30, 2007 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I suggest that 'Leftist' is even more stigmatized than 'Liberal', liberals being portrayed as 'weak' and leftists as 'Un-American' so I don't find the Left-Right question persuasive.
The fact is that Reality does have a Liberal bias. Positions that were considered extreme in 1972 from Environmentalism, to Women's Rights, to Choice have now been mainstreamed. We could call it the 'Duh!' factor, you would have to get pretty far to the Right before you would find a defender of pouring human waste untreated into rivers. Yet such defenders existed full-cry in the 70's. As the ur-example we have Ayn Rand defending smokestacks on the occasion of the first Earth Day Vee vill build smokestacks to zee moon!
The fact that self-identification measures haven't budged much may be swamped by this mainstreaming effect, the faultlines have shifted.
But there is another factor in play. The Economic Right led by Cato has successfully sold the idea to the center that market solutions are in all cases superior to government solutions. In the 70's this idea seemed slightly loony, the Republican Party then being largely identified as the Goo Goo Party, the party of Good Government where the problem wasn't the government but the people governing, when people thought 'Democrat' Bill Daley's Chicago machine and an AFL-CIO gone flabby were what sprung to mind. During those years the legacy of the New Deal was firmly in place and Social Security was so untouchable as to be labeled the Third Rail of American Politics, touch it and you die. Whereas in recent years we came pretty close to losing the program altogether and are still not out of the woods.
I have argued in various places that we are on the verge of a transformative event where New Dealers rise out of their defensive crouch and unleash a little can of FDR Whoopass and in so doing revive Liberalism as a brand. Social Security is not only not in immediate crisis, there is good evidence that it is fully solvent going forward, and a case to be made that it is actually overfunded. Maybe I am off-base on that one, on the other hand I have actually examined the numbers.
So if I am right, the Right is about to take a beating. Because when the reality dawns on the American people that this particular government program, the poster child of "Big Government is the Problem" is in fact more likely than not fully solvent, someone is going to ask "Why did everyone insist on 'crisis'?" And the blunt answer is going to be: "Conservatives were lying to you, again, just like on Iraq."
So while I will watch while you make your case I wonder where we will be two years down the road. Arguing against the War and Bush and for Social Security put me in a tiny minority in 2002, the 'Well duh!' line having shifted substantially since. That self-identification as a 'Liberal' 'Moderate' or 'Conservative' has been a little stickier than actual policy shifts is not surprising, the branding is still in place.
Low Cost is Out There. What that means is for me to know and most of America to find out. The New New Deal may be on the horizon and with it the rescue of the Liberal brand.
May 30, 2007 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm....
We said: This idea of polling for self-identification was bullshit.
You said: Well, here is some more polling for self-identification to prove my point.
Never mind that, though.
While you seem to be set on proving to us the country is more conservative than liberal, I will assume, since you say you're a progressive Democrat, that at some point you'll explain to us how we pull the conservatives over to our side.
Or will you?
Most of what I've read from the New Dems, there's really a philosophical difference between you and libs. You seem to be saying politicians should move to the right because that's where the votes are. We libs seem to be saying, we need to do a better job at moving people over (back?) to where we are.
I'd like to hear more on this point, and maybe some policy prescriptions for Democrats. How about abortion? That's a good litmus test.
And this:
Unfortunately, many of those comments exemplify the sort of anti-empiricism that I'm trying to remedy.
Please don't misunderstand us, or at least, misunderstand me. I am not "anti-empiricism."
What I am is skeptical that a person who relies on polls for "proof" and "evidence" is not in a position to claim empiricism.
(In fact, I think it's a bit arrogant to conflate people who disagree with you as "anti-empiricists," no?)
I don't really consider polling a science, since it's all about how you ask the questions. Polling is political, and it seems to me it's impossible to be "agnostic" when both writing them and interpreting them.Isn't it funny how, for example, Third Way's polls always "prove" that the moderate path is the way to go?
And by funny, I mean, "not empirical."
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
May 30, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't misunderstand us, or at least, misunderstand me. I am not "anti-empiricism."
Nietzsche had a lot of good stuff to say about science including his observations that scientists wanted to replace priests as "being knowledgeable" about the world.
I'll have to look up the author of another quote, but it goes like this: "science is not about the determination of the facts" and I thought he was right because it's about dispelling facts-- the flat world becoming round, becoming elliptical, rotating, rotating around the sun, in a galaxy.
so, how much does today's empiricist know? since people don't think of themselves as dumb, we think they know a lot even though our experiences tell us otherwise.
they might see a path but will that path take us to an important philosophy?
my 2 cents.
To boldly go...
May 30, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the empircal method that is the issue, not the definition of "facts."
As I understand it, the method requires a constant reevaluation of old claims...we act on the best evidence we have at any time and we constantly update the evidence and the decisions based on them. Provided, of course, that the evidence is subjetced to an honest review process, no?
May 30, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
IMO "Much ado about nothing... The political center, thanks to propagandistic consensus creation, by an economic elite using a monopolized media/free press and hired intellectual running dogs has gravitated so far right in the past twenty years that the discussing of the political center in terms of 20th Century Liberalism, Conservatism and a middle of the road position between them is not only impossible but in fact misleading.
I am sorry to say I view this offering as an attempt at consensus creation which in turn I view as only slightly better than a confidence game. To paraphrase Mark Twain there is a lie, a damnable lie and then there consensus creation.(which usually involves attempts to appeal based on bandwagon supporting statistics, or the like)
The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Gen. Omar Bradley
May 30, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is it possible for the country to tilt (more than briefly) either right or left of center? Center happens, by definition, to be where the country's political center is at, and if the counmtry tilts permanently one way or the other, then there's no tilt there, just a new center. Or are we defining center according to some external standard? If that standard is the politics of the entire world, then the US will be decidedly left of that center, albeit not as far as many other countries. Or is "center" defined as the European center? If so, why would that be a valid standard for the US?
Re: Most people seem to describe themselves as being liberal on social issues and conservative in fiscal affairs while the opposite often seems more true.
Most people look out for their self interest and are not very motivated by abstract principles. Dangle a tax cut in front of them (that actually cuts their taxes) and they jump for it. But make a suggestion that imperils Social Security (or some other public benefit they enjoy) and they are bitterly opposed. As for social issues, most people simply don't care very much insofar as the issues are not personal: hence even many pro-Lifers find excuses for abortions in their own family, and people who have gay family members and friends are rarely anti-gay. Otherwise, to each their own is the attitude.
May 30, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
All good points. I believe the idea is that the "center" is not defined with reference to any geographical location, but to some abstract objective standard.
Not that the definition of such an objective standard is completely unproblematic...
May 30, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a different perspective of what the "empirical evidence" of polling shows:
Doesn't sound like right of center to me.
Nor does any of this sound like "facts."
Call me anti-empiricist...
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
May 30, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few years back we attended a BBQ at my sister's house in Delaware. One of her grandsons, about 24, is an avowed conservative, Rush Limbaugh dittohead, Hannity fan. Over the course of the day I engaged him in chats, one subject at a time, about Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, clean environment
abortion, workplace safety, minimum wage, overspending on defense with the resultant corruption, etc.
Each chat was about 5 minutes long, and I made sure there was a rest period of perhaps 20 minutes between each chat.
At the end of the day, just prior to our leaving I engaged him in chat again. I went over all we had discussed during the day and told him every program he supported was a liberal program and that made him a liberal, not a conservative.
"I once ran into another guy who fought in World War II, went to college on the G. I. Bill, bought a house with F.H.A. loan, drove back and forth to work on the interstate highways. He got an S.B.A. loan for his business. His sons got some federal student loans. His parents were happily retired on Social Security and Medicare. And he said he was voting for Ronald Reagan to get the government off his back."
Fritz Hollings
May 30, 2007 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like that old Bloom County cartoon where Opus decides to become farmer. According to the training manual he has to say the following without laughing: "Get those flat-footed Government goombahs offa mah land... and hurry up with mah federal subsidy check!"
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 30, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scott,
I am willing to let you explain to us what you believe self-identification of voters means to you.
However, as I stated in my post yesterday, which still applies today, self-identification is a poor litmus test for how people ultimately vote for an individual person. Exit polling for Senator Wellstone in 1996 showcased this, as a majority of people self-identified as more conservative than Wellstone voted for him anyway. (And it's hard to get 'more liberal' than Wellstone)
However, let's take a look at popular wisdom, circa 2002
1. Washington D.C. consultants told all Democrats up for election (and those anticipating a run for President) that they HAD TO Vote Yea on the Iraq War.
Below are details about how that shaped out
YEAS
Baucus (D-MT) – Won in 2002
Breaux (D-LA) – Didn’t run, seat went Republican in 2004
Carnahan (D-MO) – Lost in 2002
Cleland (D-GA) – Lost in 2002
Daschle (D-SD) – Lost in 2004
Edwards (D-NC) – Didn’t run for re-election -- Seat went Republican -- Lost Vice-Presidential Bid
Harkin (D-IA) – Won 2002
Johnson (D-SD) -- Won in 2002
Kerry (D-MA) – Won in 2002 (no contest) – Lost Presidential Election – Told he’d never be President if he voted against the war -- Referred to as ‘flip-flopper’
Landrieu (D-LA) – Forced into run-off – Won in run-off
Lieberman (D-CT) – Lost 2006 Primary to anti-war Dem
Miller (D-GA) – Didn’t run, Seat went Republican in 2004
(Republicans who voted in favor and lost in the 2006 election)
Bond (R-MO) – Didn’t run, seat went Democrat in 2006
Burns (R –MT) – Lost to Democrat in 2006
DeWine (R-OH) – Lost to Democrat in 2006
Allen (R-VA) – Lost to Democrat in 2006
NAYS
Chafee (R-RI) – Lost in 2006 –
Corzine (D-NJ) – Was elected Governor
Durbin (D-IL) – Won in 2002
Graham (D-FL) – Didn’t run in 2004, seat went Republican
Jeffords (I-VT) – Didn’t run, seat went Independent/Liberal
Levin (D-MI) – Won in 2002
Wellstone (D-MN) – Poll numbers went up after vote and prior to death
What the results showcase is that there was absolutely NO correlation with a Nay vote and a lost election. In fact, it's quite possible that the Nay Vote would have given Wellstone another term in office.
However, 6 of the Democratic Yea Votes still resulted in switched seats. And let us not forget that even after Max Cleland, Vietnam War Vet and triple amputee, voted for the Iraq War, he was still morphed into Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden by the Republican Attack Ads and declared unpatriotic.
There is one thing that I think is important to take note of:
“Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.” -- Harry Truman
Voting in favor of the war and trumpeting loyalty to Bush was not a safeguard for Democrats. The two election cycles in which we did that, 2002 and 2004, resulted in a net loss of seats.
Showcasing opposition to Republicans as occured in 2006, resulted in a Net Gain of Seats.
Times may have changed, but Congressional Democrats could have helped them to change faster had they stood up for their own beliefs. And we know of at least two Democrats, Kerry and Edwards, who wanted to vote against the Resolution but couldn't stand firm against the consultants who told them it was a losing strategy.
Striking a clear difference between the parties is not a losing strategy.
Dems2006
May 30, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. Well the response you have gotten so far was wholly predictable given the audience you are addressing. I hope you won’t become discouraged and that you will persevere in presenting your analyses. If for no other reason, do so because you will face this kind of disagreement (not dissent by the way) your whole professional life. The respondents here are not merely the public. These are thoughtful and experienced observers of the political landscape if of a particular persuasion. If I were you I would see this exchange as a valuable opportunity to learn some things about the merits of your “empiricism.” I hope I will learn some thing as well.
Yesterday I asked whether “center” is a mid-point on a “spectrum” or, rather, a “parameterized” member of a set. It was disconcerting to read the range data (“On a scale of zero to ten” etc.) you provided. For methodological reasons the response data in meaningless without significant caveats hopefully provided by data from questions that would precede the range question.* My recommendation is that you abandon citing this kind of information in isolation as it is utterly misleading and “un-empirical.”
So I am left by default with the description of terms like “left,” “center” and “right” as valid members of a parameter set. To my mind the responses above by others put to rest any hope of treating these parameter elements as anything other than “brand” identifiers. This suits my disposition as well and I will not argue for it here.
Simply put, the consistency of the data you provide about self-identification is a branding phenomenon and nothing more. If “left”, ”right”, “liberal”, “conservative” were trademarked product names, they would likely have succumbed to “genericide.**” In commerce becoming generic can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending upon the legal and market environments. But for the user of the term it is not ambivalent. If I need an “aspirin” I may be given one of several different chemical formulas, but only one of them, acetaminophen like Tylenol, is not a blood thinner. Sometimes this matters, sometimes it doesn’t, except to the consumer of the drug. You see the problem? “Aspirin” is an empty generic brand identifier. Described in more specificity, it becomes a health aid or a health threat. You can collect a lot of opinion data about “aspirin” that might appear “empirical.” Outside of marketing applications, the data is useless and recursive like a dog chasing its tail. The respondent might want “aspirin” until it was explained to him that it might kill him. Then he would want Tylenol, which he would likely still call “aspirin” but meaning something quite different.
I think we need a posteriori (experience based) definitions of "liberal,” “conservative” etc when used in an “empirical” discussion?
*To the reader: I have some experience in opinion research and I can tell you it is not a daunting technology. If you want to you can fairly easily learn enough to be quite able to evaluate questionnaires and data. I learned it OJT so I can’t recommend a text. I would suggest going to a statistical software manufacturer like SPSS or SAS and follow their links for training/self-education.
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
May 30, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If scientists were only iconoclasts, they would have value but one needs builders as well as destroyers.
What one should know about science is that scientific truth is ephemeral. Those standing on the backs of giants simply see a bit better but their vision is still limited as is that of all.
Best, Terry
May 30, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scott's assignment for his next post is pretty clear and if he doesn't follow through, then this discussion might well get mired exactly where it is.
Scott -- you need to define what you're calling "the center" and you need to tell us what policies you think the "center" supports, on a variety of fronts.
At the moment our "fact based" discussion isn't fact-based at all. You've presented us with polling data but you haven't really defined your terms.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 30, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
one of the reasons why I like quantum physics so much is "the uncertainty" principle. ;-)
To boldly go...
May 30, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure?
May 30, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's 99.9% funny?
To boldly go...
May 30, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was both hilarious and not funny at all.
Then somebody opened the box.
Now I'm a dead cat.
Meow?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 30, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
I don't really see this as a very profound argument. Self-description is notoriously divergent from behavior. A small example: the section of the country that most self-describes itself as Christian or religious is the South. It is also the section of the country that most shows most disapproval of non-standard sexual mores, or sex education, or sexuality outside of heterosexual marriage. Now, if you took that as an indicator of behavior, you would soon find you knew nothing about the South, which, of course, has some of the highest rates of STDS, out of wedlock marriage, and even abortions.
In fact, this analogy is not arbitrary. If you look at States in which the population most self-describes itself as conservative, and defines that in terms of small government, you will find these are often the states with the most federal money flowing to them. And you will find zero resistance in these states for Government relief from disaster, whether that be bankrupting S and Ls or hurricanes. In fact, conservatism is a creed that is more about thee than me. You should live the conservative life, save, work hard, etc. - while I borrow, depend on the government to support cheap mortgages, save little, and divorce statistically at least as often as I marry.
If conservative self-description really tracked what this country was like, there would be a small federal government that is expected to do little. Power in the states would be decentralized. Divorce rates would be in the below ten percent. Racial prejudice would be openly approved of. Jim Crow laws would still be on the books. The would be no social security, no medicare or medicaid. There would be no environmental movement, no environmental laws. In short, we'd be living in Karl Rove's heaven.
Instead, Rove, believing the doctrine pushed by Winship, has done a wonderful experiment. He has found the people that the Democratic party will never appeal to. The dittoheads. The foxfed. The Dems should use that as a parameter - do not bend policies or campaigns to appeal to these people. It is a wasted investment. The more it is done, the less the Dems accomplish, the more fragile they are. The DLC is, in actuality, very sympathetic with the beliefs of the Foxfed. What is disgusting is how they disguise this belief in terms like progressive, or neo-liberal. It is just your usual pro-war, anti-union, anti- black or brown crap. And it is crap. It will never win an election or drive a liberal policy. Period.
May 30, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saying this.
I suspect that what Scott is experiencing in the comments is not the reaction of any sort of fringe left but is the rational response to the fact that he and his are not, as he said in his initial post "progressives too" but that they represent the left wing camp of the Republican party, at best.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 30, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
and the empiricist wonders: "how many lives does that cat have left?"
tada! we're back on topic!
To boldly go...
May 30, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quote of the Thread ... So far this day ...
~OGD~
May 30, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's why I like the "uncertainty principle" so much. you either measure position (fact/absolute) or trend (velocity/relative change) but not both.
Even if you have a graph, you have problems of correlation versus causation.
as a scientist once told me: "don't fall in love with your model!"
(wether it's numerically derived or an abstraction)
To boldly go...
May 30, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agreee. It's well known that polls frame viewpoints to fit their aims and pushpoll in positive (Which Front Runner Will Win: Hillary or Obama) and negative ways.
What Bush thinks is conservative, I think of as criminal-- as does most of America I think.
To boldly go...
May 30, 2007 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
money is the root of all evil, as they say-- i.e. you can worship pagan gods but "the rich" need servants with principles, like a strong work ethic! thus, true conservatism seems to be the religion forced on the slaves but the slaves have big hearts and are infected by liberalism.
so the masters give the slaves "individual accounts" and other things that tend to correct their thinking.
To boldly go...
May 31, 2007 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suggest copying this post up to the new thread - it is buried here.
sPh
May 31, 2007 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second that. As the discussion moves towards actual implementation of policy, we'll need great posts like this one. Put it up where the new discussion is taking place so it doesn't get lost.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 31, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed -- This is obviously critical to the 'debate.'
"Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality."
I use polling data for the campaigns that I run and the information Scott presented thus far has no definitive meaning because every individual polled was allowed to assign the meaning to the various descriptions.
Does that make his data completely irrelevant? Of course not -- It shows that people likely listened when George W. Bush described himself as a 'Compassionate Conservative' and that such a moniker, ill-defined as it was, was likely to appeal to self identified moderates and conservatives which make up more of the population...
However, this hits a stumbling block when one looks at the hard election date (results of the 2000 election) and discovers that a majority of people did not vote for the 'Compassionate Conservative.'
How a poll is worded is crucial when quantifying the results.
I can ask people if they want to be taxed and get a resounding NO, then I can ask people if they want new schools or better healthcare and get a resounding yes.
I'm eagerly awaiting what the self-identification is supposed to 'prove.'
Dems
May 31, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink